Tulsa World sues Bates

[Gold]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by Gold

Like I said above, the TW's counsel is excellent in this field and is seen as a great attorney.  UTW retracted the story in a big ad that goes where Bates' story usually starts -- after removing the story from their web site.  I'm not sure how you evaluate the merits of the claim beyond that.

The case makes perfect sense for a jury.  Bates lied about the TW's business.  I've seen worse libel cases make a lot of money.

Maybe Bates can hire Opala to represent him. [}:)]

quote: Bates lied about the TW's business

...think you're jumping the shark here.

Wouldn't surprise me a bit to find the World is the actual source Bates used for some of the info, but, iac, the numbers he presented came from somewhere. He's not one to make stuff up.

And, by critical analysis, "as much as" represents a dichotomy between that published info.

Given that, it'd be REAL hard to prove he lied, must less had intent to do so.

IMO, he may be wrong, but he didn't lie.

UT accepted figures presented to them by the World. Aren't those the same figures in question?

UTW accepted the figures.  End of story.  That's not jumping the shark.  That's called admitting you're wrong.  You should try it.

[Gold]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

GOLD:

You know damn well that a party caving says nothing about the merits of the case.  You said yourself the Lortons, one of THE richest families in town, went out and hired THE best attorney in this area in town.  They owned the paper, so any attorney going up against them had better have no plans of running for a judgeship. They had also better be willing to work for nearly nothing for the UTW while surely getting buried in paperwork.

Likewise, a good attorney will take a bad case from a great client any day of the week. Pay your bill and I can make a case.  If Bates could afford a $40,000,000 home he could hire a very well regarded attorney too.  Would that mean you would suddenly think his case had more merit?  Merit is not based on how pricey or well regarded your attorney is.

You own a small business.  You have a choice of either pulling a story and publishing an apology OR dropping down at least $10,000 on a retainer.  If this went to trial the tab could easily double that by the end of this year.   Very easily.  If you want to keep making money you tuck your tail and publish a retraction - and maybe have a few more issues circulated that week to boot.  

A critical reading of the Bates article shows that it could be construed as libel.  It gave some figures, states some facts, and then gave an opinionated assessment of that data.  Per the complaint Bates said the data "suggests the World was inflating its circulation by as much as 20 percent."   Can the data be construed to "suggest" such a thing?  Probably.

If the UTW or Bates were my client I'd ask if a retraction would hurt their business model (it wouldn't) and if pride would prevent them from doing so.  If they thought it was worth $10,000+ to fight it, I'd be happy to go forward.  But certainly advising them to SFTU and stay in business would be an option I'd present.

While I am not calling the claim unfounded (if I thought it was I'd volunteer to defend and go for fees), I think there is enough wiggle room between "suggestions" and the data to raise a significant defense and they damn well know it (hence letting UTW off with a wrist slap).

And FINALLY, Michael Bates is a political talking head, activist, and independent writer in Tulsa.  No offense to Michael, but that description usually does not imply that said person would have anything that a family worth hundreds of millions would want.  This is about proving that the Tulsa World is THE PAPER and shutting Bates up.  They may have been forced to act to save face, but I doubt they shed many tears over the matter (they sued the day after the issue came out).

One of two things will happen.  They'll either spend thousands and drive Bates into the ground to get nothing merely out of spite or settle for a BS apology and an agreed entry that says he won't do it again.  The Lorton's and their attorney are not stupid, there is no blood from the turnip and they know it.  So I doubt they spend the tens of thousands needed to fully pursue the matter.

Titus has represented the World for a very long time, I believe going back to his days at Boone Smith.  His firm was also involved on the deal a couple of years ago, celebrated by the wingnuts, where they sent the cease and desist letter to Batesline about quoting and linking the World.

I have no doubt that the World has the financial advantage here.  But that's not a reason not to file a lawsuit.  They have their reasons and the suit probably has merit -- these folks know what they are doing.  In addition to your estimates of the goals, I can imagine a couple of more reasons to file this: first, to determine Bates' "source." (I largely disagree with the sentiment that his articles are usually well researched -- some have interesting facts, but some also involve things that he clearly doesn't understand.  Opala, cough, cough.)  Perhaps they want to make an example to their business partners and advertisers that they are serious about their business reputation.

Plus, they may just want to stick it to the guy.  I think he's an overrated jerk that should stick to commentary about urban design.  If I owned a business that was the subject of frequent baseless attacks and accusations, I'd probably have a lot worse things to think.  No doubt they were lying in wait on this one.  I can't say I blame them.

In fairness, I wasn't happy when their editorial page called Bates out -- I thought it was akin to stooping to the level of the hyperactive bully in the back of the class.  But, this is different.

[tim huntzinger]

quote:Originally posted by Gold

In fairness, I wasn't happy when their editorial page called Bates out -- I thought it was akin to stooping to the level of the hyperactive bully in the back of the class.  But, this is different.

I tend to agree but the World has a bunch of geezer windbags on salary to gas out opinions when any dolt with a keyboard and a blog can do that - if Bates is a hyperactive bully the World is a fat, stupid, over-sized brat held back a few years trying to re-assert him/herself to the other kids. Bully Bates' assertion was not whether the fat geezer stupid World misrepresented their figures but by how much - akin to 'when did you stop beating your wife.' Oh and if Bates is a geek bully blogger - if that is the worse that can be said about him he is still a far better person than I.

[Gold]

He might be a great guy.  He should do better research before spouts off about things he clearly doesn't understand.  All I know about him is that he writes some neat stuff about urban design and some whacked out, tinfoil hat crap about local politics.  In my mind, the latter overwhelms the former.

[cannon_fodder]

Gold:

Again, it seems that you are impressed more with WHO filed the suit than what the suit says.  The petition is online, the source material was online until it was taken down.  You can evaluate the merits for yourself.

It can certainly be argued that it has merit.  But because the Lorton's/World's long time lawyer filed a suit for them doesn't mean it has any more merit than any other suit that can survive to trial.  Particularly because they are a long time client he would be more willing to go out on a limb for them.

If I was in the World's position I may have filed suit also.  Certainly if they came to me to file suit on their behalf I would have done so as I can make an argument for them in good conscious.  I could also make an argument that an opinion was expressed based on data that the World itself has published (I spoke with Bates, the World itself was his primary source) and given with parameters such that it was not a false statement (data suggests, as much as 20%, could be... qualifying language).

quote: That's called admitting you're wrong.

Admitting you are wrong by printing a retracting is merely admitting that doing so is the best course of action.  You've never advised a client to settle who was vehement about being right?  Never advised a plaintiff who got screwed to take the settlement because going forward wasn't worth it?  Never a Defendant to take a deal because the cost/benefit didn't add up to push the issue?

As I said before, a small business being sued by a large business will usually take the chance to STAY in business if offered.  Retract your statement or get put out of business by legal fees?  "Yes sir, I was wrong!"  

Doesn't PROVE anything.  It may suggest that they are admitting they are wrong, but certainly doesn't prove that they think they were wrong OR that the information printed was in fact false.


[Bates and I have gotten into it in the past more than once.  He is well aware of that and so are most people on this board.  It doesn't change my assessment of this case.]

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by Gold

quote:Originally posted by inteller

it is baseless.  I look forward to TW proving how the word "suggests" is the same as "fact".

I guess it depends on what your definition of "is" is.

Can someone with a clue give me an answer?  Thx.

Seriously, only YOU would think that the retraction in Urban Tulsa didn't pretty much concede the suit had merit.  And you are basically an angry version of Joe Allen Dolty, so I don't really care about the merits of your thoughts -- it's just background noise like the *crickets* above.  Not trying to flame, just stating the facts.

ok then, I'll just put your ****ing donkey on ignore, and you can do the same.  You can carry on the conversation with your other attorney buddies since apparently those are the only opinions you'll listen to.

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Gold:

Again, it seems that you are impressed more with WHO filed the suit than what the suit says.  

considering the fact he's a lawyer and should already know what you are telling him, I believe you are correct....you are just wasting your breath.....or keystrokes as it were.

[Gold]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Gold:

Again, it seems that you are impressed more with WHO filed the suit than what the suit says.  The petition is online, the source material was online until it was taken down.  You can evaluate the merits for yourself.

It can certainly be argued that it has merit.  But because the Lorton's/World's long time lawyer filed a suit for them doesn't mean it has any more merit than any other suit that can survive to trial.  Particularly because they are a long time client he would be more willing to go out on a limb for them.

If I was in the World's position I may have filed suit also.  Certainly if they came to me to file suit on their behalf I would have done so as I can make an argument for them in good conscious.  I could also make an argument that an opinion was expressed based on data that the World itself has published (I spoke with Bates, the World itself was his primary source) and given with parameters such that it was not a false statement (data suggests, as much as 20%, could be... qualifying language).

quote: That's called admitting you're wrong.

Admitting you are wrong by printing a retracting is merely admitting that doing so is the best course of action.  You've never advised a client to settle who was vehement about being right?  Never advised a plaintiff who got screwed to take the settlement because going forward wasn't worth it?  Never a Defendant to take a deal because the cost/benefit didn't add up to push the issue?

As I said before, a small business being sued by a large business will usually take the chance to STAY in business if offered.  Retract your statement or get put out of business by legal fees?  "Yes sir, I was wrong!"  

Doesn't PROVE anything.  It may suggest that they are admitting they are wrong, but certainly doesn't prove that they think they were wrong OR that the information printed was in fact false.


[Bates and I have gotten into it in the past more than once.  He is well aware of that and so are most people on this board.  It doesn't change my assessment of this case.]

A couple of points:

The petition is usually no more than a bare set of allegations and that is all that is required.  It can change during the course of litigation.  That said, Titus thought enough to think there was something there and this happens to be an area that he is an expert in.  And more importantly, neither of us has access to all the facts their counsel has so we don't have much basis to evaluate.  Yeah, I am impressed with who filed it -- and so should the rest of you.

I know a lot of parties who hated settling, but paid as a result of cost/benefit analysis or what have you.  That said, that's the fastest settlement by a party who allegedly didn't believe in the merits of the claim I've ever heard of.  (I would note their retraction seems to say they believed the merits and in this instance, I take them at their word.)

If UTW really is a competitor for TW's advertising (I laughed this off earlier in the thread, but a couple of people appear to believe this), then they would at least appear to have the need to take the suit seriously, evaluate it, file a timely answer or entry of appearance, and generally do what most profitable and self-respecting business entitities do when they are sued.  Of course, I don't think they compete at all and would tend to agree with your suggestion that there is certainly a financial motive to get the hell out of that suit as soon as possible.

I'm not sure if the TW story was ever linked in this discussion, though I'll admit I've been really busy the past week and might have overlooked it.  It gives some pretty good insight into what happened -- granted, it was written by a party to the suit.  http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090121_16_A13_TheTul409648&archive=yes

That said, c'mon, man.  That's a fast settlement.

[Gold]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by Gold

quote:Originally posted by inteller

it is baseless.  I look forward to TW proving how the word "suggests" is the same as "fact".

I guess it depends on what your definition of "is" is.

Can someone with a clue give me an answer?  Thx.

Seriously, only YOU would think that the retraction in Urban Tulsa didn't pretty much concede the suit had merit.  And you are basically an angry version of Joe Allen Dolty, so I don't really care about the merits of your thoughts -- it's just background noise like the *crickets* above.  Not trying to flame, just stating the facts.

*crickets*

[:X]

[Gold]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Gold:

Again, it seems that you are impressed more with WHO filed the suit than what the suit says.  

considering the fact he's a lawyer and should already know what you are telling him, I believe you are correct....you are just wasting your breath.....or keystrokes as it were.

I thought you were ignoring my "****ing donkey."

Who said I was a lawyer?

By the way, thank you for your contribution of facts and analysis to this board.  You are an invaluable resourse and certainly raise the discourse.

I mean, what it be like sitting outside in the summer without *crickets*?

[Kiah]

quote:Originally posted by Gold

If UTW really is a competitor for TW's advertising (I laughed this off earlier in the thread, but a couple of people appear to believe this) . . . .

The Tulsa World seems to believe it.  How else do you explain the fact that the 'Spot' is now a tabloid format released on Thursday morning (instead of Friday) and distributed free to bars and restaurants?  When you're facing a complete disintegration of the market, every ad dollar counts.

[Gold]

quote:Originally posted by Kiah

quote:Originally posted by Gold

If UTW really is a competitor for TW's advertising (I laughed this off earlier in the thread, but a couple of people appear to believe this) . . . .

The Tulsa World seems to believe it.  How else do you explain the fact that the 'Spot' is now a tabloid format released on Thursday morning (instead of Friday) and distributed free to bars and restaurants?  When you're facing a complete disintegration of the market, every ad dollar counts.

The Spot, at most, constitutes 1/8 of the World's business.  It does not have the same advertising content (no massage parlor, salon, or bar ads) other than a couple of things that would advertise in both, like the casino.  This isn't even worth talking about.  Moreover, it's irrelevant, UTW retracted the article.

[deinstein]

UTW are wimps for retracting what they printed.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by deinstein

UTW are wimps for retracting what they printed.

If it wasn't correct information, why would they be wimps to publish a retraction?

I can hear it now:

"I may be wrong, but I think I'll blow $25K on legal fees so people won't think I'm a wimp!"

[Gold]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by deinstein

UTW are wimps for retracting what they printed.

If it wasn't correct information, why would they be wimps to publish a retraction?

I can hear it now:

"I may be wrong, but I think I'll blow $25K on legal fees so people won't think I'm a wimp!"

Dozens of area lawyers are going to call you to see if they can take that deal. []

You are totally right, though.  We expect the World to withdraw incorrect statements -- why treat UTW any differently?